Global Warming: In Practical Terms

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Congrats...you've expanded the database to cover .01% of the last 10 million years.

[Chris_]

Congrats...you've expanded the database to cover .01% of the last 10 million years.

...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars.   

[DixieBelle]

Congrats...you've expanded the database to cover .01% of the last 10 million years.

...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars.  

Of course not! It's all of the SUV's on Earth!!!

[The Night Owl]

...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars.   

I haven't argued that the sun does not affect Mars. Obviously, the sun affects all the planets. What I did argue is that the rise in temperatures on Mars is due to dust storms and not due to fluctuations in solar irradiance.

If the sun were the culprit behind global warming, then scientists could observe proportional changes in temperature on all the planets and the mystery would be solved.

[Chris_]

...and he thinks the sun does not affect weather on Mars.   

I haven't argued that the sun does not affect Mars. Obviously, the sun affects all the planets. What I did argue is that the rise in temperatures on Mars is due to dust storms and not due to fluctuations in solar irradiance.

...because of course the sun could never have any effect on dust storms.   

If the sun were the culprit behind global warming, then scientists could observe proportional changes in temperature on all the planets and the mystery would be solved.

...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail.   
 

[The Night Owl]

...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail. 

Well, okay... If you have the answers, then feel free to explain how solar irradiance, which has been more or less constant if not decreasing since the late 1940s, is causing increasing temperatures on Earth.

[Chris_]

...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail. 

Well, okay... If you have the answers, then feel free to explain how solar irradiance, which has been more or less constant if not decreasing since the late 1940s, is causing increasing temperatures on Earth.

Here we go again with the negative proof.  Your assertions have all been shot down, and you still have not proven that mankind is responsible for gw.  Find someone who is unbiased to prove your claim.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

...and we all know that "scientists" fully understand everything about the sun and how it affects each planet in detail. 

Well, okay... If you have the answers, then feel free to explain how solar irradiance, which has been more or less constant if not decreasing since the late 1940s, is causing increasing temperatures on Earth.

Seeing as this thread is about what AGW means in practical terms, i.e. laws and taxes; the question to you is:

Should AGW be argued with the a degree of faith sufficient to impose alterations on peoples' lives and livelihoods?

So far, even by your own admissions, the evidence does not support such measures.

To expand on this I would ask:

If you truly seek further scientific exposition before calling for demands on people's rights to self-governance and economic freedom what about all the bodies seeking to turn AGW into a political blugeon? Should they be tolerated, disavowed, appeased?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

LONDON (Reuters) - The patio heaters warming drinkers and diners on the pavements of northern Europe are also warming the planet's climate and should be banned, according to a European Parliament report that could be adopted on Thursday.

Environmentalists argue that heaters not only pump heat directly into the atmosphere but also climate-damaging CO2, while owners of pubs and bars say they need them to help retain customers driven outside by smoking bans.

"Patio heaters are scandalous because they are burning fossil fuels in the open sky, so producing vast quantities of CO2 with very little heat benefit," said European parliamentarian Fiona Hall, who wrote the report criticizing the pace of energy reforms in Europe.

"We urge the Commission to set a timetable for completely taking off the market some appliances that are intrinsically inefficient, such as patio heaters," she added.

The report will not lead directly to legislation, but it seeks to guide the European Commission on parliamentarians' priorities.

Any ban would be fiercely opposed by UK pub owners, whose businesses suffered after a smoking ban last year and are now struggling with weakening consumer spending and rising costs.

The heaters are also popular in many other European countries.

"It's ironic this comes at a time when we've all invested heavily in slightly heated areas after the government banned smoking," said Giles Thorley, Chief Executive of Britain's biggest pubs owner Punch Taverns, which has around 8,400 venues.

[Chris_]

LONDON (Reuters) - The patio heaters warming drinkers and diners on the pavements of northern Europe are also warming the planet's climate and should be banned, according to a European Parliament report that could be adopted on Thursday.

Environmentalists argue that heaters not only pump heat directly into the atmosphere but also climate-damaging CO2, while owners of pubs and bars say they need them to help retain customers driven outside by smoking bans.

"Patio heaters are scandalous because they are burning fossil fuels in the open sky, so producing vast quantities of CO2 with very little heat benefit," said European parliamentarian Fiona Hall, who wrote the report criticizing the pace of energy reforms in Europe.

"We urge the Commission to set a timetable for completely taking off the market some appliances that are intrinsically inefficient, such as patio heaters," she added.

The report will not lead directly to legislation, but it seeks to guide the European Commission on parliamentarians' priorities.

Any ban would be fiercely opposed by UK pub owners, whose businesses suffered after a smoking ban last year and are now struggling with weakening consumer spending and rising costs.

The heaters are also popular in many other European countries.

"It's ironic this comes at a time when we've all invested heavily in slightly heated areas after the government banned smoking," said Giles Thorley, Chief Executive of Britain's biggest pubs owner Punch Taverns, which has around 8,400 venues.

This just stupid.  TNO, did you suggest this? It is right up your intelligence-level alley.

[The Night Owl]

Here we go again with the negative proof.  Your assertions have all been shot down, and you still have not proven that mankind is responsible for gw.  Find someone who is unbiased to prove your claim.

I'm not asking you to disprove something. I'm asking you to explain why you think that solar irradiance, which has been constant during observed temperature increases on Earth in the past few decades, is causing global warming. I'm asking you for positive proof, not negative proof.

[Chris_]

Here we go again with the negative proof.  Your assertions have all been shot down, and you still have not proven that mankind is responsible for gw.  Find someone who is unbiased to prove your claim.

I'm not asking you to disprove something. I'm asking you to explain why you think that solar irradiance, which has been constant during observed temperature increases on Earth in the past few decades, is causing global warming. I'm asking you for positive proof, not negative proof.

You keep missing that part. 

[Chris_]

Forgive me for intruding, but I heard the phrase "consensus" implied earlier in this thread......as applied to the AGW myth.

As a scientist, I can assure you that there is no "consensus" in real science......

Further, as a scientist, if I cannot prove my premise beyond peer review, either through empirical math, or absolutely repeatable experimentation, it is, and will always be simply an OPINION.....

Reasonable people (and countries) simply do not base public policy on the opinions of scientists, regardless of how numerous (or boisterous) they may be, particularly if the proposed changes to public policy involve the potential to disrupt a nations' economy, or materially change the lifestyles of its population.

Therefore, in the absence of any definitive, repeatable or mathmatical proof of the existance of AGW, absent the political motives of its proponents, it remains just so much conjecture......

Conjecture can never form the basis for public policy.

doc

[The Night Owl]

Forgive me for intruding, but I heard the phrase "consensus" implied earlier in this thread......as applied to the AGW myth.

As a scientist, I can assure you that there is no "consensus" in real science......

Correct... As Real Climate points out, science does not depend on concensus...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

Scientists are not in concensus on the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but no one can deny that it is a widely accepted theory in scientific circles and particularly in scientific circles which have studied global warming.

Further, as a scientist, if I cannot prove my premise beyond peer review, either through empirical math, or absolutely repeatable experimentation, it is, and will always be simply an OPINION.....

Reasonable people (and countries) simply do not base public policy on the opinions of scientists, regardless of how numerous (or boisterous) they may be, particularly if the proposed changes to public policy involve the potential to disrupt a nations' economy, or materially change the lifestyles of its population.

Right. I agree. Scientists have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of things. On the issue of global warming, we should give the most consideration to the opinions of scientists who have studied it in a professional capacity.

Therefore, in the absence of any definitive, repeatable or mathmatical proof of the existance of AGW, absent the political motives of its proponents, it remains just so much conjecture......

Conjecture can never form the basis for public policy.

The theory of AGW is not conjecture. Numerous peer reviewed studies have been done on global warming and most of them support the idea that mankind is the main cause of it.

[Chris_]

The theory of AGW is not conjecture. Numerous peer reviewed studies have been done on global warming and most of them support the idea that mankind is the main cause of it.

Horsecrap!

Name ONE.......

I read a lot of scientific journals, and I have yet to read anything that is not based on "computer models", and speculative assumptions.....

The earth's ecosystem is FAR TOO COMPLEX to be sucessfully modeled on today's computers......they only generate assumptions.....assumptions are not definitive science.  These assumptions only point to the need for decades more study, with vastly improved input and processing capability

Perhaps in the coming era of quantum computers we will have the capability to approach modeling on the most simplistic basis, but today we do not.

You have succumbed to the "new religion of the athiest left".....when those whose intellect will not allow them the capability to embrace real religion, must embrace a "faith-based concept".  Unfortunately it is intellectually bankrupt.

As I have learned, arguing with a "true believer" in the myth of AGW would approach the futility of you attempting to convince me to abandon my Christianity.......

I accept my religion on "faith", and you accept AGW on the same basis, regardless of how many convoluted pseudoscientific arguments you attempt to wrap around the discussion.

Since it is a free country, and you do have freedom of religion, I certtainly would be the last to begrudge you your "beliefs".  However, please don't try to convert me to your "faith", and please leave public policy, and my wallet out of your "worship".

doc

[The Night Owl]

Horsecrap!

Name ONE.......

I read a lot of scientific journals, and I have yet to read anything that is not based on "computer models", and speculative assumptions.....

I'm not sure I follow what you're arguing. Are you denying that numerous peer reviewed studies support the theory of anthropogenic global warming or are you making the argument that science based on computer models isn't science?

The nice thing about computer models of climate is that their accuracy can be checked as time passes. So far, computer models of climate change are holding up nicely when compared to observations of temperature...



http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

[Chris_]

Right. I agree. Scientists have all sorts of opinions on all sorts of things. On the issue of global warming, we should give the most consideration to the opinions of scientists whose paychecks depend on finding it to be "real" and human caused.

There -- fixed it for you.  No charge.

[The Night Owl]

It's a conspiracy!

Fixed.

[Chris_]

I'm not sure I follow what you're arguing. Are you denying that numerous peer reviewed studies support the theory of anthropogenic global warming or are you making the argument that science based on computer models isn't science?


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Actually, I'm not arguing (I'm stating factually) .....both concepts......

Computer modeling is not science when it comes to the global ecosystem....it is simply too complex to accurately "model".....to say otherwise is just silly....

Studies that support the theory are conjecture and opinion, they are not facts......

AGW is not really a "theory" in the strictest scientific sense, as it contains no repeatable observibility......

As I stated earlier, it is a "religion" which must be accepted on faith.

doc

[Chris_]

The nice thing about computer models of climate is that their accuracy can be checked as time passes. So far, computer models of climate change are holding up nicely when compared to observations of temperature...

Well.....get back to me when you have another couple of centuries of data.....

doc

[Chris_]

It's a conspiracy!

Fixed.

Not per se.  Just a lot of people who gain a lot of power and wealth by an itty bitty exaggeration. 

[The Night Owl]

Actually, I'm not arguing (I'm stating factually) .....both concepts......

Computer modeling is not science when it comes to the global ecosystem....it is simply too complex to accurately "model".....to say otherwise is just silly....

Says you. Try telling physicists or any other scientists who work in fields which rely heavily on modelling that what they're doing is not science.

Studies that support the theory are conjecture and opinion, they are not facts......

AGW is not really a "theory" in the strictest scientific sense, as it contains no repeatable observibility......

Um... If climate model predictions are repeatedly found to be correct, then we have repeatability in climate science.

[Chris_]

Says you. Try telling physicists or any other scientists that work in areas which rely heavily on modelling that what they're doing is not science.

Studies that support the theory are conjecture and opinion, they are not facts......

AGW is not really a "theory" in the strictest scientific sense, as it contains no repeatable observibility......

Um... If climate modelling is correctly predicting climate over and over again, then we have repeatability in climate science.

Well, since I am a physicist (albeit somewhat obsolete), I can assure you that there are some study systems that can be "computer modeled" with reliability, such as forces acting on a building or other structure, or airflow over a prototype aircraft, but anyone that thinks that the global climate can be accurately "modeled" over any significant period of time is simply talking out of their posterior.....or has an ulterior motive.....

Unless you are totally clueless, you know that the earth is very old, and the climate data that is reliably available dates back only half a century or so, which is a "blink of an eye" in terms of earth science study.  Repeatability, in terms of scientific method (for the earth's ecosystem), must span centuries of demonstrated cause and effect.  We simply don't have that kind of data....therefore all we have is.......

Conjecture and assumptions.....

doc

[The Night Owl]

Unless you are totally clueless, you know that the earth is very old, and the climate data that is reliably available dates back only half a century or so, which is a "blink of an eye" in terms of earth science study.  Repeatability, in terms of scientific method (for the earth's ecosystem), must span centuries of demonstrated cause and effect.  We simply don't have that kind of data....therefore all we have is.......

Half a century? Borehole analysis alone provides a 500 year record of temperatures...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

And, proxy data provides a 2000 year record of temperatures...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

[DixieBelle]

Interesting what you find when you type in: "NASA computer models" on Newsbusters.....

http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183%3Aydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID%3A11&query=nasa+computer+models+&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form#1066